Boy Scouts and Bullies

[AuntShecky]

Among the famous quips attributed to the great Groucho Marx is his oft-quoted line that he'd never join any club that would accept him as a member. The man-on-the-street's corollary to such Marxian theory is the less-humorous but more-frequently confession: "I know where I'm not wanted."

Once in a great while, an organization which formerly rejected certain hopefuls from joining it makes an about-face and softens its strict --most would say biased--criterion and accept the erstwhile pariahs, though not, we hasten to say, with opened arms. This is what happened recently within the Boy Scouts of America, which after a century of existence, decided to admit openly gay young men into its membership. It's about time-- we might say, while the BSA maintains its long-standing ban against allowing gay men as scoutleaders.

But no sooner than the door opened, a multitude of windows banged shut. Some Southern Baptist churches in the United States are staging a mass defection, withdrawing their association with the scouts rather than follow the new direction. In other words, they'd rather quit than allow some kids to become Boy Scouts. The reason they give for such cruel discrimination is religious. According to an AP report of 6/5/13 (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/churches-split-scouts-welcoming-gay-youth), one associate pastor says, "We're a Bible-believing church, and the Boy Scouts have opted to pursue a different moral path."

"A different moral path"? Really? Over the decades, the Boy Scouts have maintained a "squeaky clean" image, instilling values of helpfulness,charity,environmental consciousness, patriotism and most of all, fairness. By no longer discriminating against potential scouts who happen to be gay, they are going beyond mere tolerance toward the higher plane of acceptance. If anything, the Boy Scouts are following, rather than flouting the Scriptures: loving their neighbors as they do themselves. (Or at least making the attempt.)

What's missing from the argument of the Southern Baptists is the Christian idea(l) of an all-loving God. As Dr. Martin Luther King once stated, "Every man is equal because he is a child of God." So, the question arises: is this the way to treat a (literal) child, with rejection, cruelty, and hatred? If a boy happens to be gay, he had no choice --moral or otherwise-- in the matter; this is the way God made him. Why should he be made to suffer for it?

Additionally, the boy may be already suffering the pain of rejection and intolerance. Schoolyard bullies have a tendency to target gays (or those perceived to be gay.) What is a kid supposed to do in order to counteract the daily cycle of abuse? Join a gang? The kid needs an environment in which he may feel unconditionally accepted,a structure in which he can participate fully in enriching activities, a place to learn, to achieve--to enjoy the same opportunities as anybody else.

The Boy Scouts of America still have a long way to go, but in terms of enlightenment, they're way ahead of some of these church leaders.By choosing to remain within the Boy Scouts, the churches could continue to do good works. Instead, they've bailed, called it quits, opting to take their dolls and dishes and go home rather than to give some poor kids a break.

I'm an old lady who walks with a cane-- what do I know? But I'll tell you something: when I need someone to help me cross the street, I hope he's a Boy Scout and not a Southern Baptist.

What do you think about this issue?

[Volya]

Homophobia. Sadly it's nothing unusual in society.

[*Classic*Charm*]

All gay men are pedophiles, don'cha know? Ugh.

Sadly, the Boy Scouts have not always been squeaky clean. In recent years, many reports have come to light about boys who were sexually assaulted by leaders at camp events. HOWEVER, that is a separate issue. Pedophilia is not synonymous with homosexuality and good on the Boy Scouts for pulling their heads out of their behinds in that respect.

As for the church, I don't know what to say. I like to think that one day down the road this will be looked upon the same way the history of racial segregation is- with embarrassment and disgust. Then I remember that there are still horrible racist factions in the southern US, primarily, and realize that this particular Christian sect may never grow up. :(

[OrphanPip]

Well the Scouts also bar atheists and agnostics from being members, so it's not exactly the most progressive organizations. My parents were heavily involved in the local leadership of Scouts Canada, and the most common disputes that arose for them surrounded the various prayers and oaths to God that constitute the organization, which often caused problems for groups, like the one my mother lead, that were in more ethnically diverse neighbourhoods and wanted to include non-Christian youth.

The ban on homosexuals actually has little to do with fears over pedophilia, it has to do with the religious constitution of the Scouting Movement. The BSA should take note that most Scouting organizations in Europe, Canada and the UK allow openly gay membership (still bar atheists for the most part), but don't have the same degree of sexual abuse scandals plaguing them. The BSA has a problem with sexual abuse because they spent years avoiding background checks on members and they preferred to cover up abuse rather than tackle the systemic problem with their organization that let any predator walk off the street and work with children.

[tonywalt]

For what it's worth, and it's worth alot, it important to know why the Southern Baptists broke away from the main Baptist church in the South in the year 1845. As they also thought slavery was important to preserve.

They have a extra special history of intolerence.

[AuntShecky]

One more thing--

While it may be admirable, even heroic, to stick to one's principles, nothing in this case is anywhere near the level of St. Thomas More standing up to Henry VIII. These Southern Baptists believe they are standing up for "principle," but is the principle, an abstraction,more important than the reality? By removing their sponsorship of the
Boy Scouts, there is no guarantee that some other entity or institution will step in and provide venues and other support. As a result, innocent young people will suffer--not only the gay youth but also the previously enrolled Scouts. It's like a teacher punishing the entire class just because one kid screwed up. Of course, in this case neither the gay nor the straight boy scouts did anything wrong at all. They shouldn't be deprived merely because of
misguided moral indignation.

[OrphanPip]

For what it's worth, and it's worth alot, it important to know why the Southern Baptists broke away from the main Baptist church in the South in the year 1845. As they also thought slavery was important to preserve.

They have a extra special history of intolerence.

The Mormons only started allowing Black people to join their church in 1976.

[tonywalt]

The Mormons only started allowing Black people to join their church in 1976.

True, the big difference is that the Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination in US, only after Catholics.

[prendrelemick]

It's all labels these days

[tailor STATELY]

Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The Mormons only started allowing Black people to join their church in 1976.

Unequivocally false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mormons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

Good discussion AuntShecky.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Melanie]

...innocent young people will suffer--not only the gay youth but also the previously enrolled Scouts. It's like a teacher punishing the entire class just because one kid screwed up. Of course, in this case neither the gay nor the straight boy scouts did anything wrong at all.
"Gay youth"? Gay is a sexual preference. If these youth are old enough to be sexually active then aren't these youth sleeping in the same tent on camping trips with the straight youth? I remember as a girl scout, I camped with the troop and each tent was shared by 2 girls. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my little girl sleeping in a tent with a gay girl who was sexually active. As far as the Southern Baptist decision goes, I feel like it's none of my business to judge where they choose to tithe. They should tithe wherever they think God's work is needed most. That's up to their own prayerful consideration between themselves and God.

[papayahed]

Is southern Baptist and actual denomination or is it just Baptists in the south?

[Shevek]

"Gay youth"? Gay is a sexual preference. If these youth are old enough to be sexually active then aren't these youth sleeping in the same tent on camping trips with the straight youth? I remember as a girl scout, I camped with the troop and each tent was shared by 2 girls. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my little girl sleeping in a tent with a gay girl who was sexually active. As far as the Southern Baptist decision goes, I feel like it's none of my business to judge where they choose to tithe. They should tithe wherever they think God's work is needed most. That's up to their own prayerful consideration between themselves and God.

So all gay youths are sexually active?

And all sexually active gay youths will elicit sex from straight youths in a camping situation?

And are you assuming only gay youths will engage in any sexual activity with campers of the same sex? Sexual experiences aren't guided strictly by one's orientation - even if we make the silly assumption that all youths who aren't out are straight.

[Delta40]

We must assume therefore that all heterosexual youth are active too. What a pathetic statement to make Melanie.

[Melanie]

So all gay youths are sexually active? And all sexually active gay youths will elicit sex from straight youths in a camping situation?
And are you assuming only gay youths will engage in any sexual activity with campers of the same sex? Sexual experiences aren't guided strictly by one's orientation - even if we make the silly assumption that all youths who aren't out are straight.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never used the word "all". I only said "if". The definition of "gay" is a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. Therefore, as I stated, if my daughter were to share a tent alone with a gay female camper all night I would be uncomfortable with that because the possibility would exist that the gay female camper could be sexually attracted to my daughter.


We must assume therefore that all heterosexual youth are active too.
I never said "all". The definition of heterosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. So when the opportunity presents itself then the possibility of sex could be activated. Notice I removed your snarky comment from your quote...no need for that in an adult discussion.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never used the word "all". I only said "if". The definition of "gay" is a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. Therefore, as I stated, if my daughter were to share a tent alone with a gay female camper all night I would be uncomfortable with that because the possibility would exist that the gay female camper could be sexually attracted to my daughter.

Not meaning to be snarky, but why are you uncomfortable with that, exactly? Are you afraid this girl is going to assault your daughter? Do you think she's going to "convince" your daughter to become interested in women? Is the age gap between the two important? The idea of using homophobia to shield someone from those who may be attracted to her is outrageous. Once your daughter hits high school or university and has teachers or professors only a few years older than her, should she not interact with them because they may find her attractive? The action is what's important, not the attraction.

What about the bisexual kids? Where do they get to sleep? Or are they not invited?

[OrphanPip]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never used the word "all". I only said "if". The definition of "gay" is a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. Therefore, as I stated, if my daughter were to share a tent alone with a gay female camper all night I would be uncomfortable with that because the possibility would exist that the gay female camper could be sexually attracted to my daughter.

Such an issue wouldn't exactly be solved by banning openly gay youth from the organization. Not to mention the fact that sleeping in rooms with others of the same sex, sharing changing rooms, showers, or other gendered spaces is not a novel experience to gay youth who grow up in these situations and don't have any other option.

[Melanie]

The idea of using homophobia to shield someone from those who may be attracted to her is outrageous. Once your daughter hits high school or university and has teachers or professors only a few years older than her, should she not interact with them because they may find her attractive.
The definition of "homophobia" is an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. Your accusation that I'm protecting my daughter with "outrageous homophobia" is simply wrong. I'm not at all prejudice against homosexuals, let alone "extreme" or "irrational". I simply stated that I would be uncomfortable for my daughter to share a girl scout tent alone with one other female who was sexually attracted to the same sex. This thread is not about university students nor teachers nor professors. It's about children in boy scouts and girl scouts.

[Delta40]

if homosexuality is a sexual preference then so is heterosexuality. Why not rest assured that your daughter has made her choice and is not in any danger? She can always say 'no'.

[Melanie]

Because I'm a parent. I merely said I'm uncomfortable. I have no easy solution. It's a dilemma. Now, I think I'll step way from the firing squad.

[Scheherazade]

If we are talking about children, why is sexuality even an issue?

What's more, where is a gay girl supposed to sleep if not with your daughter, whose heterosexuality you are so certain of?

[cacian]

these are children one is talking about. how does sex get into it?

[togre]

I noticed the title of the thread included the word "bullying." What does bullying look like? Where have you seen it recently? In this thread?

There is a legitimate divergence of opinions -- Is homosexuality a moral (or some who say "God-pleasing") lifestyle? There is further disagreement on what how a person or group who answers "no" can express this conviction.

But to hurl insulting names, to publicly campaign against those who disagree, to privately belittle and berate--aren't these the actions of bullies?

[JuniperWoolf]

If these youth are old enough to be sexually active then aren't these youth sleeping in the same tent on camping trips with the straight youth?

Those are some solid lines you're drawing. Sexual preference isn't "this group" or "that group," there aren't two easily distinguished taxonomic categories. I promise, most of those "straight youths" have been curious or experimental with friends of their own sex for some time.

When I was a cadet on one of our events the organization had a lot of trouble deciding where to put the new girl who, as soon as she arrived, openly identified as bisexual. She ended up having to sleep in the officers' tent. She should have kept her mouth shut, because while she had to go to bed right at lights out the rest of the girls were enjoying a riveting game of spin the bottle. The scouts aren't much different from the cadets, and wherever you go kids are kids. Ever played "doctor?" Or "truth or dare?"

Young people aren't exactly known for their forthrightness to their parents and elders about sex. You also have to consider that most young people don't even have an established sexual identity yet, because that takes years to figure out. How can you think it's possible that all young people can be sorted as either "gay youths" or "straight youths," and that this can be taken even further to keep one group isolated from the other during sleepovers or camp outs?

[Volya]

If gay children cannot share a tent with those of the same gender, where can they go...? If they get put in with the opposite gender, then some of the opposite gender could be attracted to them.... It is a dilemma!!!!! I suppose the best thing is to ban all homosexuals from going camping. It seems like the easiest solution. We have to keep our good children safe from the homosexual children...

[*Classic*Charm*]

these are children one is talking about. how does sex get into it?

We are talking about groups not admitting homosexuals. Children's groups like the Scouts. Individuals have suggested that perhaps this is the right course of action because they don't want "heterosexual kids" bunking with "homosexual kids", in case of unwanted sexual attraction/ attention.

Keep up, please.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'm not at all prejudice against homosexuals, let alone "extreme" or "irrational". I simply stated that I would be uncomfortable for my daughter to share a girl scout tent alone with one other female who was sexually attracted to the same sex.

Then what do you suggest? How should camps handle the matter of openly homosexual youths?


What would you do in that situation? Either you keep your daughter at home to avoid the matter, or you only send her to camps where homosexuals are not allowed. Forgive me, but either of those sounds homophobic to me.

[papayahed]

Then what do you suggest? How should camps handle the matter of openly homosexual youths?


What would you do in that situation? Either you keep your daughter at home to avoid the matter, or you only send her to camps where homosexuals are not allowed. Forgive me, but either of those sounds homophobic to me.

And what do you do about the children that don't know what they are yet??

[Volya]

Then what do you suggest? How should camps handle the matter of openly homosexual youths?



I think my solution works perfectly!!! Just ban homosexuals from camping!!! That way our precious children can remain safe from the homosexuals who want to steal our childrens innocence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AuntShecky]

The original premise of this thread was that while the Boy Scouts of America have lifted their ban on admitting gay youths to the organization, the Southern Baptist church has decided to disband several scout troops under its aegis in the southern states and others, such as Idaho,rather than accept the new policy. Denying children --of every type sexual orientation-- of the opportunity to join the boy scouts is similar to the behavior of a schoolyard bully.


If we are talking about children, why is sexuality even an issue?

I agree. That's why the church's policy on this matter is so baffling. On the one hand, they may be among those of us who (rightly) decry the hypersexualization of children, in terms of alluring fashions for little girls, dollying them up for beauty pageants, and the like, yet when the Boy Scouts decided to stop discriminating, the Southern Baptists automatically assumed that the new policy somehow sanctioned lascivious behavior -- among children! That tells me where their minds are--not in heaven, but somewhere closer to the gutter.

The original posting never said nor assumed anything about camping, sleeping arrangements, showering or anything of such personal nature. Some kids will misbehave in any situation--mischievious prankish stunts like short-sheeting the scoutleader's bed or rigging a water bucket on the cabin door. But would they turn a Jamboree into Caligula's orgy? I don't think so. It would hardly occur to them.

Worrying about the possibility of actual sexual activity among the kids in this age group is not only silly but echoes the fatuous arguments against abolishing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military.

[qimissung]

Some kids will misbehave in any situation-

That's also true. I remember when my son was in Scouts a number of years ago. A slightly older kid was in his tent (there were three or four boys in there) and he masturbated in front of them, really freaked them out.

It is interesting that the Girl Scouts got brought up, and that no one in the media, as far as I can tell has yet done that concerning this issue. Melanie's concerns aside, this is the Girl Scouts official stance:

Sexual Orientation
The Girl Scouts value diversity and inclusiveness and, therefore, do not discriminate on any basis. However, we do not permit the
advocacy or promotion of a personal lifestyle or sexual orientation, nor do we recruit accordingly. Indeed, we have firm standards relating
to appropriate conduct on the part of all adults who work with girls. We believe that sexual orientation is a private matter for girls and their
families to address.
References:
Blue Book of Basic Documents 2000
-Constitution of Girl Scouts of the United States of America, “Preamble,” p. 7
-”Selection of Adults,” p. 21
-”Membership Requirements,” p. 25

In my opinion, the Boy Scouts are long overdue for an updating of their repressive policy. Let the Southern Baptists kick and scream. We always grow slowly, it seems, in fits and starts. One can only hope that eventually they will come around. As it says in Matthew, "By their fruits shall you know them."

I truly fail to understand why it took the scouts so long to come around. We "allow" gay teachers in the schools-I've worked with many over the years. What's the difference? The scouts, if I remember rightly, always had a policy of "two deep", meaning that when they were working with the kids there were always going to be two adults which I thought was a sound policy.

I think the concerns over sexuality concern those scouts in upper middle school or high school. Scouting doesn't end in the sixth grade after all.

[Lykren]

Melanie, you said you were uncomfortable with your daughter sleeping near someone who was sexually attracted to her. But I can only assume said attraction is something to be uncomfortable with if it brings with it a possibility of rape or abuse. Is that what you are really concerned about? It seems to me that, practically speaking, an adult counselor or group leader of some sort would be far, far more likely to A) have the desire to force themselves on a child, and B) be able to do so. In that case, are your fears not misplaced?

I'm not offended at what you said, just trying to explain to you why I think your statements have some logical gaps in them.

[Melanie]

...camping, sleeping arrangements, showering or anything of such personal nature. Some kids will misbehave in any situation--mischievious prankish stunts like short-sheeting the scoutleader's bed or rigging a water bucket on the cabin door. But would they turn a Jamboree into Caligula's orgy? I don't think so. It would hardly occur to them. Worrying about the possibility of actual sexual activity among the kids in this age group is not only silly but echoes the fatuous arguments against abolishing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military.
AuntS..."Orgy"? I said, as a parent, I would feel uncomfortable if my daughter were to share the night in a tent with a girl who was sexually attracted to her. I wouldn't want my daughter to sleep with a boy who was sexually attracted to her either. That's two, not an "orgy".

"Sexual activity among kids in this age group is silly"?
Girl Scouts range in age from 9 -18....those ages aren't adults, they're minors. Contrary to what you suggest, it's not unheard of for children ages 12+ to engage in sexual activity. It's a different world now.

Here are the facts:
These statistics (regarding intercourse...not including other types of sexual activity) come from Albert, B., Brown, S., & Flanigan, C. (Eds.) (2003), 14 and Younger: The Sexual Behavior of Young Adolescents (Summary), Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, pp. 5-10:

"Five percent of 12-year-olds, 10 percent of 13-year-olds and 20 percent of 14-year-olds are sexually active.
When you consider that less than half of 12- to 14-year-olds have ever been on a date, these numbers are staggering.
The numbers are increasing.
Though the proportion of sexually active girls ages 15 to 19 has decreased, the proportion of sexually active girls age 14 and younger has increased.
They have multiple sex partners.
More than a quarter of sexually active 12- to 14-year-olds reported multiple sexual partners in the past 18 months."

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "in the year 2007, 47.8% of US high school students reported having had sexual intercourse. Every year, an estimated 1 in 4 sexually active teens contracts an STD, and teenage pregnancy is 2 to 10 times more prevalent in the United States than in other similarly developed countries."

"Today both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."

Solution? I haven't got one. I don't think it would be fair to turn any child away except for unruly behavior. But it is interesting to note that the Scouts of America are a Christian organization..."on my honor, i will try to do my duty to God and my country"...and God's Word aka the Bible is opposed to homosexuality.

Lykren, I'm sorry, I missed your post regarding "rape and abuse". Like "orgy", I'm not expecting these exaggerations. As a parent, I'm concerned about any display of sexual attraction in the night alone in a tent without adult supervision in the tent. I see no gap in logic there.

[Volya]

Surely that means you wouldn't want your child alone with any other girls or boys, for fear that while alone they would engage in mischievous acts. Plus, I personally don't see much of a problem even if during a tent sleepover there is some sexual attraction going on, since if you just teach your child about these kinds of things properly, they'll be sensible enough to not do something foolish.

In regards to it being a Christian organization... Did you really think there was any other reason why they didn't want homosexuals in their Scout group? That's why the Southern Baptist churches don't want them to change the rules, because they're a bunch of homophobic idiots.

[Lykren]

Lykren, I'm sorry, I missed your post regarding "rape and abuse". Like "orgy", I'm not expecting these exaggerations. As a parent, I'm concerned about any display of sexual attraction in the night alone in a tent without adult supervision in the tent. I see no gap in logic there.

Many displays of sexual attraction I can think of would pretty much fall under my definition of abuse, because they would be harmful to the child, emotionally speaking. Can you mention what kind of act, specifically, you're afraid of? If, for example, you are thinking of one child (or teen) telling another that they are attracted to them, then I fail to understand the problem. But if you mean an incident like what happened to Qimi's son, that is more understandable; nevertheless I believe there is more likelihood of such an act being perpetrated by an adult.

Even if it were done by a minor, there is no telling whether such an act would be motivated by the hypothetical minor's homosexual desires. Such disturbing activity could easily be committed by heterosexuals who are more sexually precocious than their companions, no?